10.3886/ICPSR03382.v2Newmark, LisaRempel, MikeDiffily, KellyKane, Kamala MallikImpact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research2002arrest recordscase processingcourt casescourtsdomestic violencefamily courtsfelony offensesprogram evaluationrecidivismrestraining orderssentencing2002-07-112006-07-131994--2000
administrative records data
33822This study examined the ways in which the model of the
Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way
cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on
outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the
implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected
three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons
on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony
domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the
FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state
Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison
group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very
few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole
or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of
the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September
1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early
period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented)
and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was
selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or
in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order
violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been
indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without
application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September
1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal
contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme
Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this
law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning
in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in
which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony
charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during
the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts
as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers
to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from
the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled
differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were
designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for
criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order
violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain
information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated
for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and
post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug
treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition,
indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or
other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and
probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of
abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months,
history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and
medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional
variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before
the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past
domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims,
weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical
attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the
defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases
during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the
victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with
children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim
and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the
defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether
the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at
trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during
pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation
violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and
victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's
income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top
Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of
prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top
charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top
charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction
indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence,
disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex
and race of the defendant.The Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court
(FDVC) in the borough of Brooklyn, New York, has been operating since
June 1996. Its goals were to create an effective and coordinated
response to felony domestic violence crimes by bringing together
criminal justice and social service agencies, and to serve as a model
for other communities across the state and nation. One of the key
features of this court model was its emphasis on building partnerships
between public and private sector community agencies to coordinate
their work and achieve a common set of goals. The key agencies
consisted of the court, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings
County District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Bureau and
Counseling Services Unit, Safe Horizon's Brooklyn Felony Domestic
Violence Unit, the New York City Department of Probation, New York
Forensics, Safe Horizon's Alternatives to Violence, and Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime. This study evaluated the implementation
and effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence
Court. The study examined questions about how the model of FDVC had
changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of
this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism.In order to evaluate the implementation and
effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court, the
researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed
data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and
outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to
early 1996, before the FDVC was established and adjudicated by various
parts of the state Supreme Court, were studied. These pre-FDVC cases
provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with
the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order
violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated
the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went
into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated
by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model
was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the
pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment
charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt
charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were
cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the Supreme
Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third,
because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order
violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of
cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the
Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases
adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was
selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order
violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would
not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so
would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The
inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the
protection order violation cases were different from the general
population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by
the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only"
because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the
law under which felony protection order violations were charged. The
population of the sampled cases was identified by compiling four
sources. First, cases were selected from the District Attorney's
Office Management Information System, which catalogued cases
identified as felony domestic violence in the Early Case Assessment
Bureau from 1994 through 1997. Early explorations of this database
showed that it included a number of cases that were not in fact
domestic violence. This raised the troubling possibility that reliance
on this as the sole source could exclude many domestic violence cases,
if cases were also mistakenly excluded from the database. Reasons for
possible exclusion were unknown, but the researchers feared that any
systematic exclusion factors would lead to biased sampling. Second,
cases were identified from the District Attorney's Office Domestic
Violence Bureau log book of pending felonies, a chronological record
of felony cases recorded as victims came in to speak with a Domestic
Violence Bureau Felony assistant district attorney about testifying
before a grand jury. This source had the drawback of excluding cases
in which the victim did not come in to prepare for the grand jury. In
addition, upkeep of the book ceased partway through 1995. Third, cases
were found in the District Attorney's Domestic Violence Bureau trial
list of open felony cases that was updated two to three times per week
and ran from early 1995 through the end of 1996. Lastly, cases were
selected from the Office of Court Administration records of cases that
were flagged as domestic violence at arrest, from 1995 through
1997. However, identification of cases as domestic violence may have
been incomplete in the early period.Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain
information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated
for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and
post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug
treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition,
indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or
other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and
probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of
abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months,
history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and
medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional
variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before
the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past
domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims,
weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical
attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the
defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases
during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the
victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with
children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim
and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the
defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether
the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at
trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during
pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation
violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and
victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's
income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top
Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of
prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top
charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top
charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction
indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence,
disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex
and race of the defendant.